I looked. Those links go to some simple-minded surveys that ask simple-minded, loaded questions to determine your Dating Market Value. I didn’t bother to actually take the test, I was too busy laughing.

You know how the SMV curve had women peaking in their late teens/early twenties? In case you were wondering how these goons determined that, here’s a sample question:

1. How old are you?
15 to 16 years old: +5 points
17 to 20 years old: +10 points
21 to 25 years old: +8 points
26 to 29 years old: +3 point
30 to 33 years old: 0 points
33 to 36 years old: -1 point
37 to 40 years old: -5 points
41 to 45 years old: -8 points
46 to 49 years old: -10 points
over 49: you’ve hit the wall. waysa?

Remarkable. They’ve essentially hard-coded the result they want into the design of the questions. Then they’ve got a series of questions for the women asking about their appearance: having breasts that are “D cup, naturally firm”, for instance, gets you +2 points.

So when you ask these dumbasses how they determine this mysterious “sexual market value” thing, they point you to a test that uses the assumptions of the SMV curve to hand you a confirming number. See, look: a test that proves that large-breasted 19 year olds have the highest “market value”! Science!

Oh, and the men’s test is all about your attitudes and mastery of stock pick-up lines use by PUAs, with scattered bits about your income and IQ (you will not be surprised to learn that having an IQ above 145 gives you a negative score.)

There’s circular reasoning, and then there’s spinning around in circles chasing your own tail until you fall over and vomit. That’s these pick-up artists and so-called men’s rights activists.

So according to question 16 on the men’s one, if you’re approached at parties that’s a sign that your dating market value is low?

I think the idea’s supposed to be that teh Manly Man™ is a go-getter who’s in charge at all times. Waiting for the lowly woman to approach is a sign of weak-kneed indecisiveness, and will produce scorn from Real Manly Men™.

For all that the men’s test is claimed to be about how good at impressing women, so as to get laid, it’s really more of an exercise in cock-duelling to impress other Manly Men&trade, who will then award you the Alpha badge.

Yes, I clicked on the links. Yes I wasted some time on them. But maybe it was worth it because I am a bit of a fan of the bizarre, and this clearly qualified as that.

Did you know that your SMV as a man goes up if you have ever been arrested? Or if you sexually harass/assault women?

Did you know there is one universal standard of beauty in which big buts and lips are pretty on women, and the opposite is not beautiful?

Did you know every man likes the same size of breasts the best?

Did you know a 15 to 16 years old is sexually more attractive and datable then a 26 to 29 years old woman?

Also:

The SMV scale of a woman has a minimum of -83 points and a maximum of 64 points. The SMV scale of a man has a minimum of -26 points and a maximum of 26 points. The totes accurate and totally scientific graph of yesterday went from 0 to 10.

Also, the MRAsshole who made the test is proud of the fact that the following things are not considered in determining the value of women, and explicitely states this; apparently the job of a woman, how much she makes, her accomplishments, social status and number of friends, and her worldview don’t count at all.

This guy doesn’t want a woman, he wants a sexdoll.

Also:

Unlike the men who took my Male Dating Market Value test, I do not expect *any* women to be completely honest with themselves taking the Female Dating Market Value test. The female ego is simply way too fragile to absorb the shock of such a brutal self-assessment.

Yes, this guy is truly one of the most vile bits of scum roaming around on this Earth.

It is very lucky for these MRA clowns that women apparently care nothing for physical appearances. If one can’t tell whether a man is worth ‘mating’ with by his looks or measurements then we need to make it more socially acceptable for me to introduce myself to men with ‘Hi, I’m Mary2. How much money do you earn and do you own a porshe?’. I’m no longer going to waste my time with small-talk.

Oh, wait, am I supposed to be standing quietly in the corner wearing my push-up bra and thinking deep thoughts with my brain which is only clever enough to allow me to connect emotionally with men, waiting to be approached by a ‘real man’? How will I know if he is a real man worth emotionally connecting with? I know, by approaching me with ‘What’s a nice girl like you doing in a place like this?’ he will let me know that he is THE ONE.

I’ve only come as far as the introduction to the women’s test and I’m already rolling on the floor laughing.

Guys, you may take this quiz for your girlfriends or wives to see if you have settled for tepid sex once a week or if you always get hard looking at her and never forget her birthday.

Really? Guys need a test to tell them whether they’re getting hard? Please appreciate how difficult it is not to insert a small cock joke here, because I know they are bad, but this is such an incredible setup.
And if they need a test to check whether they never forget her birthday, then I can already tell them they probably do, as well as their car keys and their address. Go see a doctor, please.

So according to question 16 on the men’s one, if you’re approached at parties that’s a sign that your dating market value is low?

Not quite, Daz has more the right idea. All three responses allow for being approached, and no one question in the survey can suggest your overall dating value is low (as their individual effect on the final score is miniscule). From the wording of the question, it’s saying that if you’re the type who waits to be approached, rather than approaching others, your dating value is negatively affected. It’s suggesting that actively approaching women increases your chances of “success” by some amount.

@Giliell

I recently went to the wedding of two of my favourite people.
The bride was 55, her groom 51.
I must have dreamed up the whole thing

The guy who invented the SMV tests not only hates women but he also hates men. The MRAs continue to prove they’re not only misogynist but misandryist. Or as the spell checker tries to tell me, misanthropist

So that second “firm” is unnatural? I thought breast enhancement would be the best investment a woman can make, to these guys.

Get a tape ruler and measure around your waist and your hips. Divide your waist number by your hip number. This ratio is

That’s disturbingly precise.
Whoever made that questionnaire must have had some strange conversations with his girlfriend(s).

How long is your jawline from ear to chin?

Wut?

You think blowjobs are:

Great! You give them spontaneously and there’s never any doubt how much you enjoy it: +1 point

OMG I’m imagining a disturbingly grinning woman (see question 27) suddenly dropping to her knees in the middle of the street and going for some random guy’s zipper.

How often do you curse?

I think I said damn once: +1 point
I blurt out fuck and shit a few times a week: 0 points
My mouth is a gutter: -1 point

What, no dirty talk? Meh.

I hope everyone noticed what was missing from this test:

Your job.
The amount of money you make.
Your accomplishments.
Your social status and number of friends.
Your deep and profound worldview.

Unlike the men who took my Male Dating Market Value test, I do not expect *any* women to be completely honest with themselves taking the Female Dating Market Value test. The female ego is simply way too fragile to absorb the shock of such a brutal self-assessment. Therefore, I will be mentally subtracting 10 points from every woman who posts her score here in the comments.

I almost pissed myself laughing when I read this.
The lack of self-awareness in this paragraph is astounding.

The SMV scale of a woman has a minimum of -83 points and a maximum of 64 points. The SMV scale of a man has a minimum of -26 points and a maximum of 26 points. The totes accurate and totally scientific graph of yesterday went from 0 to 10.

DMV seems more specific than SMV, but I don’t know enough about either to say you’re wrong to use them interchangeably. You could have a 0 to 10 scale if you wanted one, for the DMV test linked. DMV=10*([score]+83)/147 for women and DMV=10*([score]+26)/52 for men.

Rating(evaluating) is us, we are all up to our eyeballs in the rating game 24/7. We are sometimes able to choose what and how we do our rating. Even our choices in what we wish to rate are rated….by us ….who else?

Try reading a couple of posts without doing the rating thing, just observe. Is there free will, are we able to not rate for even a few moments?

It’s sadly instructive of the mindset of MRAssholes like Roissy aka Heartiste that the SMV for women includes giving 15 and 16 year olds a positive score. (Ephebophilia isn’t a problem in the kingdom of Pua.) I also found my BMI skewed –1 on one version of the test, +10 on the other. But then, when going through the men’s SMV, I came to Q4 and had to ask, what is a bench press? Enough said.

A) a human being, to another human being? -1 Urg U R so gay/a woman (which are apparently both very bad things)
B) a mirror/robot? 0 points Nothing. You are nothing.
C) a total dick? +1 You win everything!

Wow, men’s BMI changes their score by +/- 1, women’s BMI changes it by +/- 10? priorities right there. Same goes for age. Women get a huge raft of questions on their appearance and men get “Are you old or fat? Doesn’t really matter. Are you rich though? can you act like a prick?”. Has this guy met any women or men? Any humans at all?

If I have incorrectly assumed homophobia (which appears to be the case in this specific article) I am sorry. I have trouble giving the benefit of the doubt to anyone who views emotional engagement as bad and a woman as a “target”.

Still cracks me up that they’re trying their shtick out on a happily-married father of three. I thought they were all supposed to prey on 33-year-old single lewsers like me. It’s like they’re really just incapable of going off script.

56 to 63: Guys want you, girls want to be you. You are just short of perfection, which paradoxically means you will get hit on more than the super alpha females. You are a player’s greatest challenge, and his greatest reward, because unlike the perfect woman there is still something human about you.

Still cracks me up that they’re trying their shtick out on a happily-married father of three. I thought they were all supposed to prey on 33-year-old single lewsers like me. It’s like they’re really just incapable of going off script.

“The Happy Atheist”

Sounds like your average frustrated chump to me.

Seriously though, I cannot stop giggling reading their attempts to convince someone, someone that they do not know, that they MUST have a sex life that they are unhappy with.

_____

Tethys #44,

That sums up the mindset perfectly. The perfect woman is not human.

That “gem” you quote does reveal much about their thinking. For the not-quite-super-alpha-females**,
there is still only “something human about you”. What the fuck is wrong with these people, ALL WOMEN ARE FULLY HUMAN. Fucking shits-stains .

To me the most telling questions on the women’s test are the following:

5. Your breasts look firm and pert when you wear:

A bra: 0 points
An underwire push-up bra: -1 point
Nothing: +1 point

2. How important is makeup to your appearance?

It slightly enhances my looks: 0 points
I look like a different woman with makeup: -1 point
I’m a natural beauty. My morning face looks the same as my evening face: +1 point

And most bizarrely:

11. Where is there hair on your body?

My head and pubic area only: +1 point
I have to shave my legs daily and wax my bushy eyebrows: 0 points
I have dark forearm hair and a mustache: -1 point
Nipples, asscrack, and that giant mole on my back: -2 points

They don’t want a woman who does anything to look better. I imagine that would make her a slut. They want a fresh off the line sex bot without any mammalian characteristics.

3. What is your IQ? (This relates tangentially to your ability to connect emotionally with a man.)

Under 85: -1 point
85 to 100: 0 points
101 to 120: +1 point
121 to 145: 0 points
Over 145: -1 point

Hmmm. Mister and I are both -1 point, going by this bit of idiocy, and connect emotionally just fine. I suppose this whole thing is clinging to the misogynistic belief that brains in a woman are bad, and men just don’t care for those brainy wimmin, nope.

Reading the questions about bra size, firmness, pertness, etc. reminded me of when I was ten and I found a copy of the ’60’s cartoon sleaze-rag “Sex to Sexty” (Yes, I am dating myself.). The point being that I was TEN and I thought the cartoons and jokes were NOT sexy but INCREDIBLY STUPID AND IMMATURE. And I was ten!

And I think of the guy who wrote these tests and . . . let’s say I feel reasonably sure that he has a whole stack of “Sex-to-Sextys” or similar stuff in his whacking material closet. These people are children (evil, stupid, adult children, with the capacity to do a lot of harm, but still — pants-pissing, snivelling, insecure, narcissistic, mewling, puking children.)

Personally, I find beauty/sexiness in how everything fits together, rather than a series of “objective” scales for each feature. That overall picture includes personality, and at the top of the list. I’d like women to be able to accept their bodies as is (at least to the extent that they’re reasonably healthy bodies), rather than compare themselves to impossible ideals. Self-acceptance can show physically through posture and body language, and it can form a positive feedback loop if they’re acknowledged for it.

The reverse happens all too often, where unhealthy “objective” ideals are used to beat women down, rather than let them be beautiful in their own ways. Meanwhile, there’s plenty of MRA-created misandry for men who prefer real women over sexdolls. It doesn’t hurt in the same proportion, but it does hurt both genders.

Nepenthe @48, the “firm DD” thing is also a pretty good sign that they aren’t familiar with breasts outside of porn and video games. Even women who have fibrous breast tissue are subject to gravity and the elasticity of skin. The sort of breasts they find perfect don’t exist in nature.

Anyone else notice that a man’s child pornography record decreases his SMV by a whopping 1 point, the lowest unit in the quiz? WTF. In comparison, women lose 1 point when they have strong jawlines or sports trophies, and up to 10 for being fat or old. Call me crazy, but I would much rather date the fattest, oldest, most athletic woman with the biggest jaw in the world than a goddamn child rapist. I guess I must be a man-hater.

On a lighter note, the bizarre obsession with “firm” natural breasts is cracking me up. Has Heartiste ever touched a breast larger than a B cup? They are literally big ol’ sacks of fat sitting on the chest wall. If they’re “firm,” they’re either augmented, or the woman has extremely built pecs underneath them — which apparently both decrease SMV anyway. LOGIC!

To these losers, the importance of youth in women is that inexperienced women are easier to fool. And of course, more experienced women expect more out of even straight-up-one-night-stand sex than these pathetic creeps were capable of on their best days. In a few more years they will no longer be able to fool the children and that will be that.

Meanwhile those women who have hit the “wall” will be doing just fine. Lucy Liu is about 45, I think. IMO, she is far more beautiful now than she was at 25. (Full disclosure: I am pretty firmly heterosexual, but that woman makes me drool.)

At least I know something about the author:
He miserably failed highschool economics.
Because if everything were true, there would be very few desirable women, but a hell lot of desirable guys. Which means that their value must dramatically decrease by the laws of the market. many sellers, few buyers.

Hmmm. Mister and I are both -1 point, going by this bit of idiocy, and connect emotionally just fine. I suppose this whole thing is clinging to the misogynistic belief that brains in a woman are bad, and men just don’t care for those brainy wimmin, nope.

Perhaps. As you identified though, it’s -1 regardless of gender, which suggests a high intelligence quotient is thought to negatively affects anyone’s DMV. At a glance, an IQ beyond either of the extremes will have a greater negative influence on a man than a woman. The areas that award +1 and 0 differ across the genders, and would suggest intelligence is thought to be less valued in ‘wimmin’ by men than in men by women.

and @52

Yes, and they shouldn’t, as a lot of people in the U.S. live with their parents. It’s hardly uncommon.

I agree they shouldn’t, but not because something they mock is common.

Zigbot @57

Anyone else notice that a man’s child pornography record decreases his SMV by a whopping 1 point, the lowest unit in the quiz? WTF. In comparison, women lose 1 point when they have strong jawlines or sports trophies, and up to 10 for being fat or old

Indeed, though bear in mind that the 1 point (while the lowest) cannot be meaningfully compared from one test to the other without some kind of conversion. Given that the intervals are more or less evenly divided with vague references to terms like ‘alpha’, ‘lesser beta’ etc. it might be reasonable to suggest 1 point in the men’s test approximates 6 points in the women’s test.

Even with this consideration, I agree that one would perhaps expect it to be worth more than the lowest possible and not necessarily lumped in with public exposure.

I really should try out this “proof reading” idea I’ve heard so much about.

Overrated and cliche. Also, -1 point for not living by the seat of your computer chair (or whichever surface your bum is planted upon.) No, I’m not subtracting points for some biased personal value assessment I want to see corroborated in an unscientific measurement of others… I ashore you!
====
About the living-at-home-with-parents-therefore-loser meme, yes it is horribly negative. It’s one of those things I’ve heard repeated so often that I am ashamed to show my face in public because I fit the “loser” mold externally, and assume that everyone has that same picture of a “loser”, and that’s how I end up feeling internally. It sucks, so yeah, stop it, please.

That last bit wasn’t directed specifically at you Daz… and I hope it’s not felt that I’m piling on to make anyone feel guilty. I just wanted to add my voice and personal experience for those who still have doubts about using the meme affecting anyone negatively via splash damage.
/OT

To these losers, the importance of youth in women is that inexperienced women are easier to fool. And of course, more experienced women expect more out of even straight-up-one-night-stand sex than these pathetic creeps were capable of on their best days.

You might be right on target, considering a massive element of the Game/PUA-based “sexconomics” is to fool women into believing their SMV is higher than it actually is. It’s funny that they’re all trying to “game the system” but react violently against people who destroy it – just like poor Randroids who see capitalism is screwing them over but belive fervently they can make it to the 1% if they’re Hard-Working enough.

I find it absurdly comforting that my SMV (ugh, what a disgusting concept) or level of attractiveness to these doodz is probably in the negatives. Hopefully that means they and their ilk will avoid me.

Also, my husband would laugh his ass off at their suggestion that he “settled for tepid sex once a week” or whatever.

Whatever world they live in, I am sure our combined mangina and feminismismism repels them from the world I (reproductively successful!) inhabit happily with my (reproductively successful!) spouse and 3 kids.

I don’t know why you all get so worked up. I just took the female test and it looks like I’m +5. So it’s time to put my best drag and go huntin` me some MRA because, apparently, I’m their kind of guygirl!

@57 Zigbot:
Of course they didn’t touch any C+ breast. They didn’t touch any breast – what human being would want to be intimate with someone as repulsive as MRA?

BTW, I encourage everyone to take both tests and compare the scores. It’s hilarious!

The differences between the IQ question for men and the one for women* is rather interesting:

15. What is your IQ?

Under 85: -1 point
85 to 110: 0 points
110 to 130: +1 point
130 to 145: 0 points
over 145: -1 point

3. What is your IQ? (This relates tangentially to your ability to connect emotionally with a man.)

Under 85: -1 point
85 to 100: 0 points
101 to 120: +1 point
121 to 145: 0 points
Over 145: -1 point

Men have to have a higher IQ score before they get that +1, while both get a -1 at the same scores. I thought that was odd. They’re obviously operating on a “ladeez must be dumber than the menz to be sexy” assumption here, but still think that there’s some cut-off where men become less attractive for scoring too high on an IQ test.

*Obviously, in this worldview anyone non-binary identified just flat out doesn’t exist.

The creator of this test seems to have created it to convince himself that he’s hot stuff and all those ladies who wouldn’t fuck him with a stolen pussy aren’t. It’s like a kid making up the rules of a game as he goes so that no matter what he does, he’s winning. It’s like Calvinball, but with only one player and that player is a total pedo-bear.
Blech!

The IQ question is biased towards a stereotype of intelligent women as being “frigid”, when in real life you never know if that “bimbo” celebrity you’re fawning over as a role model for sex objects has an IQ is in the high 140′s.

I note that in your criticism of the IQ question being biased towards that stereotype, the example you give is of a woman with an IQ claimed to be around 163. There is a problem I have with immediately accepting penalization of high IQ in the women’s test is necessarily a result of a stereotype. That problem being that men appear to get the same penalization.

If, in your opinion, the stereotype is what changes the IQ ranges for which 0 and +1 are awarded, I could certainly see that being a possible reason.

The Mellow Monkey @69

Men have to have a higher IQ score before they get that +1, while both get a -1 at the same scores. I thought that was odd. They’re obviously operating on a “ladeez must be dumber than the menz to be sexy” assumption here, but still think that there’s some cut-off where men become less attractive for scoring too high on an IQ test.

I thought it was odd also, but not necessarily that it’s a case of “ladeez must be dumber than the menz to be sexy”. If we assume the average has been taken to be 100, then clearly a woman’s IQ being below average doesn’t add to the DMV under any circumstances, while an average IQ to slightly above average IQ does. There is no indication that the IQ of the men to which this value is purportedly important must be higher (indeed, the average male IQ should also be 100). It could even be argued that this reflects value is added if the woman is of equal or greater intelligence, but not so intelligent that the man feels like an idiot around her. In the same way that some people would want to date someone more attractive, but not so attractive that friends reels at how much better either the more attractive of the two “could have done”.

What we can conclude is that the test suggests men like women of average intelligence to 20 points above average, but not much higher. Likewise, we can conclude the test suggests women value average (or perhaps very very slightly above average) to 30 points above average, but not much higher.

blf @71

I did not realize there was such as thing as negative IQ scores.
In this case, probably imaginary as well; e.g., IQ = -i = -sqrt(-1).

Is there a such thing as a negative IQ score? Certainly I can’t imagine anyone would have one.

I meant to say “…but not so attractive that friends reel at how much better the more attractive of the two ‘could have done’.” There are probably other errors too, so just pretend I reworded them as well.

Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaidensays

IQ was originally computed in the basis of [(your raw score)/(the raw score of a median person of your age)]*100

Some tests now have some adjustments to make before taking the ratio. I’ve never scored an IQ test, so I’m not sure exactly what happens, but the theory is very definitely supposed to be a ratio of your score to expected median.

What we can conclude is that the test suggests men like women of average intelligence to 20 points above average, but not much higher. Likewise, we can conclude the test suggests women value average (or perhaps very very slightly above average) to 30 points above average, but not much higher.

I don’t think it’s a suggestion. It’s a flat assertion that that is what is valuable in determining your desirability, with no reason given for determining the ranges and overlaps. What I conclude is that the test is suggesting that the people who’ve promoted this test as an accurate assessment of desirability have an insecurity issue with regard to pretty much every item in question and are trying to assuage themselves of such insecurities by normalizing their traits.

High IQ (if that’s even a reliable indicator of intelligence anyway) in a woman is a turnoff for these clowns?

Well, that stands to reason – if you’ve got the mind of a Bro-Magnon cave-douche then I suppose you would be intimidated by a 21st century woman who can use her brain. They’d better steer clear of my wife then. Oh, and my mother, sisters-in-law, niece – hell, these troglodytes would have run screaming from my grandmothers.

BTW: has anyone else noticed this MRA “science” reeks eerily familiar like that scientific poll employed by Chunderbunny to “prove” how right he was, according to his subscribers?

Caine @77
My explanations are responses within a discussion of explanations offered by others. You seem to be singling out me because I’m taking a contrary position, no matter how reasonable my justification is. This discussion isn’t about me. Many observations have been made on the page, and a small handful have been interpretations I think are overreaching or wrong. I’m on topic and free to call out inaccuracies in the posts of others as anyone else is with my posts. If I think I can justify why a particular view inaccurately represents that which it criticizes, what’s wrong with saying so? This is not defending the ‘PUA shit’, and nowhere do I make endorsement of any views the tests might express. I’m all for criticizing shit, but I reserve the right to engage in discussions that keep criticisms of shit accurate.

@Crip Dyke
Wouldn’t that, by definition, make the median IQ 100? I don’t mean to say exactly 100 is average. I realize IQ is fuzzy, but consider the average to roughly 100. Whether it’s 90 or 110, I still consider this about average. I don’t think it’s nonsensical to talk certain IQ’s being above or below average, when we know it doesn’t have a uniform distribution. Even if they tailor the number 100 to the median of the distribution, that would still be representative of the median of the ‘raw score’.

@throwaway
I couldn’t comment on the insecurity issue. I often boggle at the ‘rules’ of job interviews and such with similar dismay. But the rest I completely agree with. I don’t want to get bogged down in whether anything it says counts as an assertion or a suggestion. I’m fine with either. I merely said ‘suggests’ because it doesn’t explicitly say it in the same way I do.

If they were talking about negative IQs, I agree. The idea that an average IQ doesn’t exists wouldn’t really make sense. As for the distribution being uniform, I very much doubt that is the case. A uniform distribution would imply that all IQs have equal probability, which is just not the case. Perhaps you thought I said ‘normal’ distribution, which is the form I would expect it to take.

To these losers, the importance of youth in women is that inexperienced women are easier to fool. And of course, more experienced women expect more out of even straight-up-one-night-stand sex than these pathetic creeps were capable of on their best days.

I have no idea how this business of negative IQ got started. It’s not in the quoted parts of the survey.

It’s probably just an honest mistake by blf. They could have heard the talk of negative (DMV) scores and IQs and misunderstood it to be talk of negative IQ scores. The possibility didn’t occur to me at the time.

It’s like they came up with the survey and scoring based on looking at a handful of comic books and watching some bad romantic comedies from the 1950. It’s ridiculous stereotypes to the extreme. It would be funny, if it wasn’t so damaging to the people who believe it and the women they try their “game” on.

Worse than their witless surveys are the advice Roissy et al give for a man who’s somehow managed to get into a relationship. It’s entirely about abuse – gaslighting is the least of it; he even suggests terrorising a woman by pretending (or he claims pretending) to throw her pet from an upper-storey window.

he even suggests terrorising a woman by pretending (or he claims pretending) to throw her pet from an upper-storey window.

Abusers do that. They’ll torture and kill pets as a way of hurting their victims. It’s also a threat: “This could happen to you”. I even know one abuser who got his victim a puppy as a way of “making up” so that later he could threaten her with hurting the animal. It also makes it harder for the victim to leave. Shelters don’t take pets and the victim will be afraid to leave them behind. I know so many instances of this sort of animal abuse as psychological and emotional abuse of people that I jokingly wondered if there is some sort of abuser handbook that teaches it. It turns out, there is. Shelters are getting savvy though and some of them enlist the help of animal rescue organizations who have volunteers who can foster the pets.

Personal story: the one time I’ve been involved in violence (extremely drunk brother; I was sixteen and his violence was aimed at our mother) my worst fear was that he would hurt our cats. Not because he’d ever been cruel to animals, or abusive for that matter, but because they were the vulnerable ones and I was most afraid for them. If he had … well, I don’t know how much harm I could have done him, but damn I would have tried.

The female ego is simply way too fragile to absorb the shock of such a brutal self-assessment. Therefore, I will be mentally subtracting 10 points from every woman who posts her score here in the comments.

56 to 63: Guys want you, girls want to be you. You are just short of perfection, which paradoxically means you will get hit on more than the super alpha females. You are a player’s greatest challenge, and his greatest reward, because unlike the perfect woman there is still something human about you.

From zenlike:

The SMV scale of a woman has a minimum of -83 points and a maximum of 64 points.

So the idjit subtracts ten from all women’s scores, meaning the highest possible score a woman can get is 54. So no woman can actually be just shy of super alpha female.

Jacob @95 – his sour grapes become more and more obvious, don’t they? It’s like Jackie said upthread, it’s his “yeah well ur ugly hur hur” response to women who wouldn’t fuck him if he was the last man in the universe.

I noticed that, only there’s no if statement. You can’t subtract from a score that was never given. Also, he writes that *all* women’s egos are so fragile that they’re lying to themselves as they do the test:

Unlike the men who took my Male Dating Market Value test, I do not expect *any* women to be completely honest with themselves taking the Female Dating Market Value test.

Oh, and on Ian Immabigdick in the other thread? He made a complete arse of himself at the start of the year by jumping on the bandwagon of dudely outrage that the Canadian gummint was legislating to outlaw sexbots. Said bandwagon was being driven by Pox Day, iirc.

Problem for them being, of course, that no such legislation exists or was being considered.

These nits don’t know anything about bras. Example: they need to look up ‘sister bra sizes.;’ I myself can get bras that are 30G, 32F, 34DDD/E, 36DD, 38D, 40C,42B, or 44A. I discovered this when I went in for a professional fitting and they had me try D, DD, and DDD/E depending on the other, numerical value. No one is a D or a DD; women are both, depending on the bust size (and on the specific bra; companies often vary how they size bras).

I also don’t get the obsession with firmness. I think it’s some bizarre concern over “sagginess.” Shows they’ve never actually had any fun with real breasts and an equally (or more!) interested person with them. Soft is justice.

I also don’t get the obsession with firmness. I think it’s some bizarre concern over “sagginess.” Shows they’ve never actually had any fun with real breasts and an equally (or more!) interested person with them. Soft is justice.

I’d love to see PUAs have to take your test, Gilliel. Their little heads would asplode at the concepts of “individual,” “person” and “interesting”. Or they would once those concepts had been explained to ’em.

Oh, and on Ian Immabigdick in the other thread? He made a complete arse of himself at the start of the year by jumping on the bandwagon of dudely outrage that the Canadian gummint was legislating to outlaw sexbots. Said bandwagon was being driven by Pox Day, iirc.

Wow, that was pretty awesome. For someone who boasts about his sexual prowess, Ian McRocktool is suspiciously enthusiastic about his masturbot dystopia. That seems very… beta?

I especially like the bit about BMI. Having a BMI under 18.5 is considered underweight. But according to this, it’s totally hot. I’m not sure where these men think they’re going to find an especially super skinny woman with natural d cup breasts and a big, round ass.

Al Dente @117 – I’ve already died laughing once tonight, now I’m going to have to be Zombie Kittehs and do it all over again!

Anyone here know A Voice for Pierre? It’s a comic by one of the Manboobz regulars (not me). Pierre’s a stereotypically polite and patient Canadian who has the misfortune to meet up with MRAs regardless of what work he’s doing (he’s been in everything from retail to medicine to national security).

Why yes. Yes it would. However, my sentence still makes complete sense if you realize that the keys for aergv are all disturbingly highly variable, and leapt inappropriately under my fingers – or, in some cases, out from under – when I was trying to use the keys aegintv to give you an answer to the earlier question about whether or not **negative** [not average] IQs exist.

You know, if IQ were actually a reliable basis for predicting anything other than IQ, I might be severely disappointed in the IQ implications of typing two otherwise reasonable paragraphs in a manner that rendered them gibberish through the replacement of a single word.

Yeah, in hindsight it should have been obvious that’s what you meant. My post ended with “Is there a such thing as…?” and yours began “No. There isn’t a such thing as…”. ChasCPeterson recognized it was a typo immediately.

@blf

I see now, cheers.

Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaidensays

Not only is the average 100 by definition, but raw scores are further normalized to give a standard deviation = 15.

Yes, that’s how they did it. Thank you Chas. I knew that they were adjusted as opposed to being more directly compared as they were originally, but I couldn’t remember what they did to adjust things.

In hindsight, not only had I forgotten this as a fact specifically communicated to me, it’s also obvious a z-score would be the tool of choice for this. It makes hash of it being the “quotient” it originally was, of course, but it accomplishes the goal quite neatly. Clearly I haven’t been doing any math for a while.

omgomgomg so I went and read all the Pierre comix; not bad, even if I had to read the author’s notes on some of them to get it…but frog help us there are links in there to the actual maonsphere. I followed some and now I feel dirty. I had not even imagined the fetidness of that swamp. ew ew ew.

I do NOT recommend that little exercise to anybody else. I will just post a couple of milder things here to sort of serve as warning signposts:
So you have a blog, and you want to select some background art to sort of give the place some flavor.
And the flavor you choose is this.
Or this.
Nope, no misogyny here!

And I just cannot resist one, just one, not-even-illustrative quote:

I don’t hate pederasts. Western civilisation was built almost entirely by pederasts (and Jews), with the odd girl loving subhuman hebophile thrown in (for example Beethoven, or Goethe).

First of all, as a couple of people mentioned above, cup size is relative to band size, so there is no such thing as a “D cup.” All “D cup” means is that the full bust measure is 4″ larger than the underbust measure. That’s it. So a D cup on a 30 band is a radically different size from a D cup on a 42 band. Handy example here

Second, the whole A – DD thing does not reflect the sizes of actual women. American bra companies, in particular, don’t offer a full range of sizes that reflects what people need, so we end up trying the closest available size, which half the time isn’t even close. A more accurate portrayal would look something like this (and remember, cup is relative to band, so take this with a grain of salt):

A – D: Small
DD – FF: Medium
G – H: Large
HH and above: Very large.

The proper way to measure yourself for a bra is to measure your underbust and your full bust, and take the difference. Your underbust is your band size. The cup size is the difference between underbust and full bust, one inch per letter size, so 1″ of difference = A, 2″ = B, and so on. (British sizing goes A B C D DD E F FF G GG H HH J JJ K KK L. American sizing is all over the map, really inconsistent, and very few companies even make sizes above DDD, so it’s better to ignore American sizes altogether.)

The problem is that most bra shops use an outdated measuring system that will automatically put you in the wrong size even if you go to get “professionally” fitted. (Victoria’s Secret, I’m looking at you.) Most places find your band size by measuring your underbust and then adding four inches, and then they take your full bust to find your cup size. This will instantly put you in a band that’s too big and a cup that’s too small. It’s very frustrating. There’s absolutely no need to add inches; that method was introduced in the 1970s as a way to transition from the old style of bra sizing to the new, and it stuck. Almost 40 years later, we’re still in the transitional period. You know how you keep hearing that “80% of women are wearing the wrong bra size”? This is why. It’s not because women are too stupid to know their own size; it’s because shops encourage people to wear the wrong size, and on top of that, bras of the right size are simply not available.

For instance, I wear a band size of 30. That’s almost impossible to find here in the US, because most places expect you to add 4″, which would put me in a 34 band. A 34 would be way too loose on me, and it would constantly ride up, and it wouldn’t provide any support.

Chas @127 – Yes, Pierre is a bit in-jokeish often enough, since it’s derived from trolls on Manboobz threads as well as MRAs’ own sites.

I never follow links to MRM sites. First, because getting them filtered by David in the safe environment of MB is quite enough; second, because I wouldn’t be at all surprised if MRA sites were loaded with malware (apart from the human malware running them); third, they’re so obsessed with how many hits they have that I don’t feel the need to contribute to their back-patting.

Yup, we had a collective head explosion on one thread where those who know about Singulwhatsits told the rest of us about it, and the eternal torture by AI and so on that Lesswrong blather on about. It was possibly even more bizarre than the usual MRA stuff.

In my experience buying bras in the US, the stated band size is almost always much closer to the bust measurement. In other words, a bra that says “32 [letter]” on it is likely to have a band several inches shorter than that (and no, the elasticity isn’t enough to make up for the difference), while a bra that actually fits an underbust of 32 is likely to be labeled 36 or 38.

Oh hey, Pierre is apparently run by one of the assholes who was most happy about throwing out the LGBT from manboobz. Cool, I can ignore a webcomic based on personal distaste for the author rather than neglect like I usually do.

I once had to stand in the office and explain to a group of three guys how bra sizes are calculated! Not something I really wanted to have to go into, but one of them was quite seriously telling the others that it was related to bowler hat sizes and how a cup size of this fitted into a hat size of that! (I don’t even know how he got hold of this idea, and I have no idea how he expected to keep the hat brim out of the way while measuring!) I realised that all three of them could end up buying really unsuitable things for their wives if they didn’t get this corrected fairly quickly, because the fact that they were actually buying his explanation suggested to me they might not think to just ask the right size..

Well, about a year and a half ago, some of the LGBT posters on manboobz, including yours truly, had mentioned, for reasons that sincerely escape me (Given that nobody said we were derailing, we probably were not), that supporting the Catholic Church was an anti-gay move, because the church uses your attendance to intimidate politicians, and your money to either directly fund heterosexist measures, or to attack pro-gay laws that were in existence (Such as holding ‘charity’ money ransom and contingent on pro-gay laws not passing, etc). The folks who’d in general been bad at queer rights (for trans people, usually) were offended that we were questioning folks’ religious matters, and really weren’t their efforts to reform the church totes making up for it?

It escalated, given that most of the “Nah, catholics can go to church without doing heterosexist shit” folks had priors, more or less. Futrelle came down on their side, and most of us except for a token bounced, as did other folks who were watching and were like “dude, not cool.” A couple other occasional posters around here were present for it, and if you insist, I can find us leaving, but I sincerely don’t recall where in the nine hells on the main site the matchstick is. The kindling is even less concentrated (We did not explode off of a single incident).

You don’t speak for every LGBTQ person on Manboobz. Yes, I know something about what happened then, I’ve read the threads from the time.

Obviously, seeing as I left more than a year ago.

There are plenty of LGBTQ people there now – some new, some not – who’re at least as comfortable and safe in that space as then. That’s partly due to some former members having left.

If that’s a reference to me/us (I do recall the token at the time blaming us in The Secret Room. Technically, I’m not the one breaching the confidence here, as it was after we were removed), I’m laughin’.

I don’t know any regulars there now I’d call assholes. Far from it. Obviously our views on that are very different.

If you read Pecunium defending as non-heterosexist the Catholic Church as an organization, Catholic Doctrine in particular, and the US Military’s prosecution of gays, and don’t consider him an asshole? Then your opinion on assholes is entirely fucking irrelevant to me, and he still seems to be there. And seeing as you’re posting here, I’ll just go ahead and let you know: The immediate choice of words used to defend the choice to remain in the Catholic Church was that I was “being one of ‘those atheists'”. Because you know, my problem with Richard Dawkins isn’t that he’s a sexist and racist berk, it’s that he’s too mean to religious people.

And it was seriously not just Pecunium. Katz was huge on pretending anything bad me or DSC ever said about Christianity being patriarchal was because I was an atheist, and that I was being way too mean to ‘regular Christians’, despite the fact that I felt I was frankly softballing it on Christianity in general.. Shit I said about Islam, Chinese syncretic religions, etc? Obv deserved and something any rational woman would say.

These are people who defended, or in Futrelle’s case, were wishy-washy over condemning, some fucked up cissexist shit. If there hasn’t been a huge change in culture, and a lot of individuals owning up to their mistakes, then I don’t really care if you’re queer or not – you’re participating in marginalizing queer people, albeit in a pretty small way.

There were others doing the same nonsense as Katz, I just sincerely don’t remember their SNs, and they may have changed in the interim at any rate. I want to be clear that this was not a matter of 3 people fucking up.

Manboobz community: best avoided for atheists and rationalists who find religious and supernaturalist twaddle oppressive and/or obnoxious. It does seem to have gotten more queer friendly insofar as several prominent commenters are at least part trans*.